Related Documents

Site Navigation

Social Psychology

Chapter 6: The Conditions of Social
Progress

Knight Dunlap

§ 1. Social inheritance and the individual

Social progress is possible through increase in knowledge of the principles
governing social organization, increase in knowledge concerning the facts of
individual and social life, and increase in the materials of culture. Along with
this accumulation, an improvement in methods of training individuals in habits
and ideals, and in methods of imparting information, is possible. The history of
human institutions demonstrates the practicability of this method of progress.

The accumulations of learning, culture, and invention are passed on to our
descendants as truly as capital and debts are transmitted. This is inheritance
in the literal sense of the term. Coming generations will have the telephone,
radio, and air-craft which have been produced in the last two generations, just
as we have the alphabet and the printing press invented by earlier generations.
Philosophy, religion, ethics, literature, and all the other materials of culture
are also inherited. English speaking peoples today are especially fortunate in
their inheritance from so many ancient and modern peoples.

As a result of social inheritance the child of today attains a vastly
different development from that which he would have attained in the environment
of Egypt of ten thousand years ago, or in the wilds of central Australia. A
hereditary tendency is a tendency to develop into a certain type of individual
in one environment, and into an individual of a different type in another
environment. Our ancestors' tendencies to develop into unsanitary, rude, cruel
barbarians were also tendencies to develop into sticklers for sanitation,
kindliness, and culture in social environments like those of today. In spite of
the rise of various nations and stocks, and the decline of others, social
evolution proceeds, provided the social products of each age are preserved and
transmitted. The rate of progress, however, is variable, and is maximal when
highest social inheritance is in the hands of peoples of the best stocks;
peoples, whose tendencies to devel-

(
155) -opment in the environment afforded by that inheritance are the
highest.

The chief obstacle to progress seems to be the fact that each human
generation begins exactly where all preceding generations began, with the same
tendencies and capacities as their ancestors. With the increasing body of
culture and inventions to be communicated, the education of the individual
becomes more and more complicated. The period of training required by our
children, and the labor involved in that training, are the same as would have
been required to train our savage ancestors to the same level of attainments.
Our progress in one generation seems to affect the next generation solely by
modifying the environment to which the next generation is subjected.

It would seem that more rapid progress, and perhaps progress of a better
sort, might be made if we could actually improve the capacities of the
individuals in successive generations, so that these individuals would respond
to the environment in better ways than their ancestors could have done. Then,
instead of starting in each generation at the same level in infancy, and
training each to a higher level than the preceding generation attained, each
generation would start at a higher level, and progress would be accelerated.

Unfortunately, in spite of our general belief in evolution, there seems to be
no evidence that any human individual has greater capacities mental or physical,
than had his most remote ancestors of which we have any historical or
archaeological evidence. If an individual is superior to some of his ancestors,
it is apparently because he has inherited not from these, but from other
ancestors, who were just as capable as he is. What may have happened millions of
years ago is of little practical importance. In a few thousands of years, no
appreciable change occurs. For the problem of social organization, what may
happen millions of years from now is also negligible. We can usefully concern
ourselves only with changes which may be brought about in a relatively few
generations. The reasons why there is no appreciable change in inheritable
characteristics from generation to generation are set forth below.

§2. Heredity and training

We have considered the individual, so far, as an organism which has definite
tendencies toward response. Stimulated in certain ways

(
156) by the environment, it acts in certain ways, develops certain desires,
and has certain types of consciousness. These reactions modify the individual,
especially his nervous system, so that the tendencies present at one time may be
replaced by other tendencies later. But at any given time, we assume, there are
reaction tendencies in the nervous system, which, upon definite stimulation will
produce definite responses.

The modifying process through which reaction tendencies are changed are
designated as training, learning, acquisition, or habit-formation.
The tendencies present at any given time in the individual, we call habits,
or acquired tendencies. But since habits presuppose previous
tendencies which have been modified, the question arises as to the "original"
tendencies from which the process started. If acquisition, or training is the
modification of a previously existing tendency; and if that tendency, if
acquired, depends on still earlier tendencies, it would seem that there must
have been, in the individual, at some earlier stage, tendencies of an original
type, with which the series of modifications started. Such assumed "original"
reaction tendencies have been commonly called "instinctive tendencies" or
"instincts." On this assumption we have to consider two forces determining the
life and development of any individual: his instinctive tendencies, or "nature,"
and his training, or "nurture."

The human individual, we know, is developed from an original single cell, the
fertilized egg, which is formed by the union of two special cells, the egg
(ovum), produced from a germ cell of the mother and the sperm cell
(spermatazoon), produced from a germ cell of the father. This method of genesis
is common to all the higher order of plant and animal life.

The fertilized egg has certain inherent tendencies to develop along definite
lines. The egg of the cat develops into a cat, the egg of the human being into a
human being. From the egg of blue-eyed parents, a blue-eyed individual develops)
Obviously, the egg contains definite developmental tendencies, differing in
different eggs, which must have been obtained from the germ cells of the
parents. This transmission of tendencies from generation to generation is called
heredity.

(
157)

The actual tendencies of the fertilized egg are carried principally in the
chromatin of the cell, or at certain stages of development, in the chromosomes
into which the chromatin divides. Further than this, we know little about the
mechanics of these tendencies.

In the mother's uterus the original cell divides into two, these again into
four, and so on. A process of specialization of cells appears, and ultimately
the cells of different type: muscle, nerve, gland, and so on, are formed, and
are arranged in the typical tissues and structures of the human being.

At some time during the development of the embryo, activities of the
response-type begin. Several months before birth, coördinated movements of the
muscles of the legs, arms and trunk are noticeable, and it is probable that
movements of other muscles occur also. At what stage these movements begin,
whether they are from the beginning response-movements, and at what moment
learning commences, we do not know. But we have no reason to doubt that the
remarkably well coordinated responses of sucking and crying which are exhibited
at birth are habits, developed by the modifications of movement which have
commenced much earlier in utero.

Presumably, response cannot occur until the process of growth has perfected
structures and their 'arrangement. Theoretically, there-fore, there might be a
point in development at which the first, and therefore the truly "instinctive"
or
original response of the neuromotor mechanism, or a definite part of the
mechanism, occurs. That there is any such definite beginning of response in the
ordinary sense of the term may, however, be doubted. It may well be that growth
itself is a process continuous with response-modification and subject to the
same laws. But whether this be true or not, we may reasonably expect to find
that the changes involved in the modification of structures in such a way as to
make responses possible, are modifications of essentially the same type as those
involved in habit-formation.

For the present, therefore, it is safest to regard all response-tendencies as
habits, and to make no assumptions concerning "instinctive" or
"original" responses, until detailed investigation of the development of
responses in the embryo have been completed. So far as we are now concerned, the
only certain "instinctive" response is the first response of the fertilized germ
cell to its environment, and the only "instinctive" tendency of which we are
certain is the tendency embodied in the structure of the fertilized egg cell
itself.

(
158)

Heredity, then, is structurally the organization of the fertilized egg cell,
and dynamically it is the fact that different cells are fitted to respond
differently to the same environment. Subject two different fertilized human eggs
to the same conditions, during gestation and after, and they will develop into
different types of individual, making different responses to the same stimuli.
One may be blue eyed, fair haired, intelligent, and gentle; the other, dark
eyed, dark haired, dull, and vicious. The details may differ slightly in some
cases, but greatly in others.

Of course, no two individuals can ever be subjected to exactly the same
environment. Even in the uterus, twins cannot be said to be nourished exactly
alike, nor stimulated exactly alike. Hence, even identical twins[2]
could not be expected to be exactly alike at birth, even if in the beginning of
foetal development the two were exactly alike, which, of course, is another
improbability.

The developmental tendency is not, however, isolable from the environment.
Along with the fact that fertilized eggs differently constituted would develop
into individuals with different characteristics, we must consider the fact that
eggs exactly alike would, in different environments, develop differently. This
is manifestly true in the post-uterine life, as is demonstrated by the effects
of training on the individual. Some characteristics can be very much modified by
relatively small changes in the environment, and others are very slightly
modified by large environmental changes, but nevertheless, growth and habit
formation are, throughout, influenced by the stimulation applied. The child can
be very readily made to

(
159) show fear reactions to situations which previously did not excite such
reaction. Its height and weight can also be modified by control of nutrition and
exercise, and even the color of its hair can be changed by exposure to, or
protection from, the sunlight.

In the uterine life, there is no doubt that the same conditions obtain.
Changes in nutrition manifestly influence the foetal development. If the
fertilized egg of Scandinavian parents were trans-planted to the uterus of an
Italian mother, it would undoubtedly develop into a child which at birth would
show general Scandinavian characteristics; but that its characteristics would
not in some way, however slight, differ from the characteristics it would have
possessed if it had developed in the uterus of a Scandinavian mother, is
entirely improbable.

Heredity, in short, cannot rationally be conceived as a force operating
independent of environmental forces, but must be conceived as operating through
them, and vice versa. A hereditary tendency is a tendency to develop in
one way in one environment, in another way in another environment. For some
tendencies, wide ranges of environmental variation produce little variation in
results. For other tendencies, slight environmental changes produce large
results. Conversely, differently constituted germs will have different
tendencies just as the animals later have different habits. Heredity, as an
isolable factor, must for the present be considered as confined to the process
involved in the formation of germ cells and their union in fertilization.

§3. The modification of germ cells

In the development of the individual animal from the fertilized egg, through
repeated cell division, and the specialization of later generations of cells,
some cells remain unchanged throughout the divisions, and in the adult body the
descendents of these cells, the germ cells, live in the testes of the
male, or the ovaries of the female, having essentially (but not necessarily
exactly) the same characteristics as the original fertilized egg cell from which
they and the whole body have descended. From these germ cells in turn, sperm
cells or egg cells are formed, and by the union of the sperm cell from one
parent and the egg from another, a new fertilized egg cell is produced, and the
whole process repeated. Germ cells, in other words, are not produced by the
bodies they inhabit, but are the descendents of

(
160) endless lines of germ cells, which at various points produce animal
bodies as side products, the bodies being useful to the germ cells, as houses
and mechanical appliances are to men who build them.

As, in the same climate, successive generations of men build houses of the
same type, because the men are of the same type; and yet the houses of one
generation are not produced by the houses of the past; so the men themselves are
alike because their germ cells are alike, and the bodies of one generation are
not really descendents of the bodies of the preceding generation.

The fertilized egg cell from which an individual starts is not exactly like
the fertilized egg cell from which either of his parents originated. Loosely
speaking, half a germ cell from the father's line, unites with half a germ cell
of the mother's line, to form the fertilized egg cell from which the child
develops. In the process of division of germ cells to form spermatazoa and eggs,
no two sperm cells from the father's germ cells, and no two eggs from the
mother's germ cells will be exactly alike. Hence, no two of the children of two
parents will be closely alike, unless they be identical twins; and in many cases
brothers or sisters are very different. These variations are quite
understandable in terms of the permutations and combinations of the various
characters carried in the germ cells. The fact that characteristics of ancestors
which are not apparent in parents may appear in their children is intelligible
from the fact that when there are conflicting characters in the fertilized egg
cell, derived from two different parents, one of these characters alone may
express itself in the individual developed from the fertilized egg cell, but
both characters may be transmitted to successive descendents of the germ cell.

If, in successive divisions of a germ cell, all its progeny were precisely
like the original germ cell; and if in the division of a germ cell into
spermatazoa or eggs, and the subsequent union of a spermatazoon and an egg into
a fertilized egg cell, no changes were made in the characters transmitted, there
would be various combinations in the species of the characteristics possessed by
the individuals of the earlier generation, but no changes other than these could
occur. There could be no further evolution, and the origin of the species itself
would be unintelligible.

Mutations, or changes in the characters of germ cells, are believed

(
161) to occur most frequently at the divisions into sperm cells or eggs; or
at the union of sperm cell and egg; but according to recent investigators, may
occur at later stages of development also. Variations in the characteristics of
individuals would then arise. The other possibility of change, whether of
improvement or deterioration, in the germ cell, turns upon the possibility of
the modification of the germ cell during its individual life time. There is no
inherent improbability in such modification; for the germ cell is a living
organism, whose activities are dependent upon its environment, and whose
activities may modify its structure, even if the structure be not more directly
modified by the environmental forces themselves. That such modifications may
occur through changes in nourishment or temperature of the egg, or through
chemical changes in its environment, is demonstrated by experimental work. But
that such changes are of normal occurrence, or are important in the development
of a species, is by no means demonstrable.

It is believed by some persons that individuals who have been trained along
specific lines may transmit to their children the results of training as
increased capacities for receiving training along the same specific lines. It is
held, for example, that the training which a race horse receives not only
increases his speed, but that his progeny, begotten later, are thereby given a
greater capacity for speed. The studying of mathematics by an individual is
popularly believed to increase the mathematical ability of his children. The
same type of
transmission of acquired characters has been assumed for a wide range of
training, motor, mental, and emotional; and even for structural changes.

Reliable evidence for such training effects is not at hand. A few startling
experiments are on record, but are not generally received as trustworthy. It is
inconceivable, moreover, that the structure of the germ cells could be so
modified by specific activities of the organism in which they reside that the
same activities would be affected in the individuals developed from them.
Mathematical work on a man's part could conceivably affect the nourishment of
the germ cells in his testes; but that the effect would be different from that
produced by intellectual work along any other line is not conceivable. The only
influence would be exerted through materials carried in the blood stream, and
the effect, if any, would probably be

(
162) of a general sort. Furthermore, the germ cells are especially well
protected against influence even of the general nutritive sort. And such changes
as might be brought about through extreme modification of the blood, by the
introduction of poisonous substance, or by the withholding of essential nutrient
materials, would undoubtedly be of a general nature, causing deterioration in
many characteristics. In view of the absence of proof of the transmission of
specific acquisitions, the possibility must be considered to be very remote. If
there is any effect of bodily processes on the germ cells, it must be very
general in its nature, and its existence and importance remain to be
demonstrated.

There is no reason to suppose that training in politics and in tennis would
affect the germ cells differently. But emotional differences, and differences in
fatigue might have some effect, in conjunction with the same type of physical or
cognitive activities, since emotion and fatigue affect the bodily metabolism,
and hence the food supply of the germ cells. But that there are any specifically
different chemical results from mathematical labor and the labor in copying
manuscript is quite improbable. Musical training, through the emotions aroused,
might conceivably have some influence on the germ cells, but there is no reason
to assume that the effects on the germ cells would be to create a capacity for
musical appreciation on the resultant individual rather than a capacity for
interest in international politics.

The germ cell in the testis or ovary is literally a parasite upon the
organism which supports and protects it, and so is the child in utero.
"Prenatal influence," in the sense of an effect produced by the intellectual and
emotional processes of the mother on the unborn child, can be only a matter of
nutrition and chemical stimulation or poisoning. The 'current tales of birth
marks produced by the mother's fright, or musical talent produced by the
mother's application to musical study during the period of gestation, are
without foundation in fact. We have no reason for supposing that any activity,
or condition, of the mother could be the cause of an effect on the child which
would resemble the cause. We have no more reason to suppose that intense
application of the mother to any sort of labor would give the child a tendency
to industriousness than we have to suppose that it would make the child, lazy.

The mother's study of mathematics may affect the nourishment

(
163) of the child. Undoubtedly it does in some way, if it affects the
mother's metabolism at all. But there is no more reason to assume that the
effect would be to increase the mathematical ability of the child than to
increase its generosity or darken its hair. Continual fear on the part of the
mother may very seriously alter the child's food supply, and may result in
injurious components being added. It is possible that these changes may weaken
the child in some respect; but there is no more reason to suppose that the
result will be to increase the child's fear tendency than to make it dull and
unresponsive, or irritable and quick to anger.

§4. Eugenics

Individual improvement through heredity seems impossible. At least, it is
negligible for the present. The training of the individual affects progeny only
in so far as it changes the environment of the next generation: of course, the
parent is a part of the child's environment. But social improvement through
heredity is nevertheless possible. There are many strains in the human family;
many strains even in any national group; and these strains differ in their
physical and mental characteristics. Some individuals arc tall, others short;
some thin, others fleshy; some blue eyed, others brown eyed; some lazy, others
energetic; some highly intelligent, others feeble-minded. Each of these
individuals tend to transmit to his descendents the characters which have caused
him to develop these characteristics. From feeble-minded parents we expect
feeble-minded children, or at least the tendency to develop feeble-mindedness.

Obviously, then, if we can increase the reproduction of the strain which
possesses certain characteristics, and prevent the reproduction of the strains
not possessing it, that strain will crowd the others out. Nothing new will have
come into the race, but something will have been suppressed, and the average of
the race changed. Similarly, if the reproduction of the more feeble-minded be
decreased, or the reproduction of the more intelligent be increased, the average
intelligence of the total group will be raised in succeeding generations. This
average improvement or eugenic effect through the suppression of undersirable
types, or the prevention of the deterioration or dysgenic effect, which would
occur if the more desirable types were allowed to decrease, is the program of
eugenics. The two problems

(
164) of eugenics concern, therefore, the repression of the reproduction of
the unfit, and the increase of the reproduction of the fit; and the immediate
concern is with methods by which these results may be brought about.

The most troublesome question for eugenics is Who are the "fit," or better?
The almost universal answer is "We are!" "We" being the race, class, or group
giving the answer. Fortunately, this answer is not quite unanimous. As concerns
the immigration problem, this answer is satisfactory. We, in the United States,
have certain average characteristics and average ideals, which are somewhat like
the average characteristics and ideals of the peoples of Northern and Western
Europe. We, or the majority of us, propose to maintain this average, and in
pursuance of this purpose, to exclude those whose presence would materially
change the average. The majority rules in a democracy, and we have an undoubted
right to self-determination whatever other peoples may wish to change our
average.

The American Indians, first in possession of the country, undoubtedly had the
same right to exclude the undesirable aliens who would modify the average
characteristics and upset their culture. And they made the attempt to assert
this right, but unsuccessfully. That situation has vanished, and we do not want
what happened to the Indians to happen to us.

But this answer is not satisfactory for eugenics. If we want to maintain an
average within a population, we must know what that average is, and if we want
to raise the average we must agree upon what we shall consider an improvement.
If this agreement cannot be reached by the majority, any further discussion of
eugenics is futile. We must therefore consider the possible answers to the
question.

1. The fittest race. With the possible exception of the black races,
each race considers itself the best. We are familiar with the conceptions of
"Nordic" superiority as held by those who consider themselves representatives of
that rather indefinite group of races. Within that group, the Germans, the
English, and the Scandinavians have little doubt as to the superiority of their
own racial groups. On the other hand, the Irish, the Dutch, the Scotch and the
Italians are just as certain of the exceeding values of their own particular
stocks. And the Jews are convinced that they are the chosen people.

(
165) Among the Hindus, the Arabs and the Turks, the same conceptions
prevail. There is no hope of unanimity of opinion concerning any of these races,
and the only solution of the rivalry is through one of these races becoming
powerful enough to crush the others out. And the one which succeeds is obviously
the "best" race.

Our problem, therefore, reduces to the question of the fittest stock within a
race, aside from racial determinations. The possible answers turn upon financial
status, social standing, intelligence, other mental abilities, social
contributions, sanity, morality, and physical characteristics.

2.Judgment by financial status at first seems
reasonable. Our successful citizens are obviously fit for their environment,
otherwise they would not succeed. Moreover, they are actually leaders in
accomplishment. Our captains of industry and finance may be morally
reprehensible, but they are men of ability who have contributed very greatly to
national progress. They correspond to the barons and dukes of older times who
grasped and wielded power through their personal ability; and they compare very
favorably with these noble lords.

The greater number of wealthy men today, like the majority of the nobility,
are not men who have attained their status through their own efforts, but are
those who have inherited their advantages, and who, for the most part, show
little evidence of having inherited the personal characteristics which made
their progenitors great. Instead of contributing largely to social progress,
they are merely parasites upon the social organism, and without value to it.
Obviously the possession of wealth is no index of social value, and the ability
to acquire wealth, if transmissible, is not linked necessarily with any socially
valuable qualities.

3.Social standing. The indefinable, but real,
characteristic called "social standing," as distinguished from the wealth, title,
or accomplishments which sometimes determine it, is sometimes seriously proposed
as a mark of social value. But here also the characteristics which gain standing
must be distinguished from the standing itself; the latter being frequently
inherited without the characteristics. As concerns the personal characteristics
which gain social standing; these are best considered apart from the standing
itself, which is a badge of such doubtful meaning.

(
166)

4. Intelligence. It is argued that the more intelligent persons are
the better for stock purposes, since intelligence is really hereditary. This may
be true, and we might even persuade those who are low in intelligence to agree
to the proposition, if we could agree on the definition and determination of
intelligence. Intelligence is, how-ever, a term covering a wide range of
characteristics, according to various definitions.

In its most important, and most generally accepted use, intelligence means
capacity to learn. There are various forms of learning, variously
measurable, and we cannot assume that a certain grade of learning ability in one
line would necessarily involve equivalent ability in other lines of learning.
For many practical purposes, therefore, we measure the capacity in several
lines, and averaging the capacities as measured, arrive at what is arbitrarily
called a measure of "general" intelligence, without making any assumption as to
the existence of a real "general" capacity. The capacities are actually
determined by measuring, or rather by sampling, the acquisitions of knowledge,
that is, what has been learned along the lines selected. The measurements as
thus carried out are called "intelligence tests."

In intelligence testing by the conventional method, we are dealing with
complex conditions. The actual acquisitions measured, or sampled, obviously
depend on the interest the individual has taken in the sampled line of
investigation, and "learning capacity" really covers this complex of capacity
and interest. The acquisition depends, moreover, very distinctly on the
opportunities for acquisition which have been offered. If, for example, we
measure the acquisition which has been made by two individuals in arithmetic,
the differences may depend upon actual differences in learning capacity, upon
the interest taken in, and application to, the subject, and upon the actual
extent and nature of the course in arithmetic, or other arithmetical training to
which the individuals have been subjected. In all comparison of individuals with
regard to intelligence as tested, therefore, we must assume that the
opportunities of the individuals for acquisition have been equal, or else make
direct corrections for the differences in opportunity.

Obviously, then, intelligence testing is useful only when the tests are
devised specifically for the classes of persons to whom they are to

(
167) be applied; and the more generally applicable the tests, the less
useful they are. College matriculants, having been subjected to courses of
training which are essentially similar, (high school training), and being about
to be subjected to conditions in college essentially similar, may be tested with
a high degree of efficiency in result of prediction as to their success in
college. But even so, the actual differences in high school and home training
introduce serious difficulties into the use of test scores, and differences in
college conditions may operate to prevent a test which has good predictive value
for one college from having the same predictive value in another college.

If the intelligence test designed for college matriculants is applied to men
of a quite different class as regards training and professional requirements, it
may be of little value. Experimentally it has been found that the same tests may
be used with equal advantage on freshmen and office clerks, (although not as
adequate for either as specially designed tests for each), but fail completely
with business men, (other than clerks), upon whom the requirements of practical
success are different, and who require apparently different training, or else a
different kind of "intelligence."

Although paradoxical in form, the statement that tests of "general
intelligence" are efficient in proportion as they are made special, is true
enough. For use on children, the tests are made special in that they are not
really applicable to adults, but general in that they involve knowledge that the
average child may have been expected to have acquired at certain ages. But even
with these special tests for children, the results are useless unless
interpreted with reference to the special training of each child. For adults,
"general" tests which may be applied to various classes of persons
indiscriminately are successful only in so far as very rough divisions of the
groups are required.

So far as present means of grading intelligence go, we can do no more than to
pick out the individuals of very bad stock from the larger group. The
individuals who show up as exceptionally high in intelligence tests may be good
breeding stock; or they may be bad. It is impossible at present to determine
this point. But the very bad, the feeble-minded, it seems quite clear, are bad
stock, transmitting their deficiency to their posterity, and with no
compensating advantages.

(
168)

5. Records of contributions which individuals have made to society,
quite apart from the wealth or social standing which may be attained by these
individuals, have been assumed to be evidence of "fitness." Statesmen, authors,
inventors, organizers, scientists, and men and women of many other classes, make
important contributions to the social inheritance of mankind; and the
multiplication of men of genius and exceptional ability is certainly desirable.
These persons are unquestionably "fit" in one sense of the term, but that they
are the fittest from the eugenic point of view is not so certain.

Sometimes the son of a man of exceptional ability in one of these specialized
lines of endeavor has as great ability as, or even greater than, his father.
Occasionally, the grandson may also show a high measure of the same ability. But
these are, after all, exceptional cases, and in the great majority of instances,
the immediate descendents of exceptional men appear to be of only mediocre
ability.

This failure of genius to reproduce itself may be due in large part to the
chances of mating. Brilliant literary men, great scientists, and geniuses in
other lines, do not usually marry women of ability in these same lines, and the
children may inherit from either parent in regard to the characteristics in
question. It might be maintained, therefore, that if male geniuses were mated
with female geniuses, the children would tend to be geniuses. On this theory,
the child of a man and woman of exceptional mathematical ability, ("native"
ability, not training), would be a mathematical genius in a far greater
proportion of cases than would the child of parents of whom one or both were of
only average mathematical ability. We have to admit the theoretical possibility;
but there is not at hand evidence to substantiate it, or to contradict it. Many
cases would have to be analyzed, and means found for the determination of
capacity in various lines, in cases in which this capacity had not been
developed. For it is obvious that so far as transmission of genius is concerned,
it makes no difference whether the individual has the capacity developed by
training, or has it entirely undeveloped and indiscernible by ordinary means of
observation. The "mute inglorious Milton" could transmit literary ability to his
posterity as readily as the Milton who had published renowned volumes. Many
"ordinary" women mated with geniuses may be the possessors of latent genius, but
latent genius would be as transmissible as the developed, if genius is
transmissible at all.

(
169)

Studies have been made of noteworthy families, extending over many
generations, in the attempt to show that genius is transmissible. It has been
shown that in certain families, generation after generation, men of exceptional
ability have appeared; the proportions of genius to the total number of the
family being far greater than in the population at large.

Many difficulties are found in the interpretation of these genealogical
studies. In the first place, the later generations of the same "family" are, of
course, the descendents of many other "families" also. The great grandson of
Ebenezer Smith may belong to the "Smith family;" but he has four
great-grandfathers and an equal number of great grandmothers: a total of eight
different ancestral lines in the third ascending generations, with as great
probability of inheritance from any one of these as from any other. If he
happens to bear the name of "Smith," or for other reasons be classed in the
"Smith" family, rather than in one of the others, that does not in the least
affect his biological inheritance. But it may affect his social inheritance: an
important matter.

There is no doubt that there are often practical advantages of "belonging" to
a distinguished family: advantages sometimes in education, sometimes in other
practical matters, so that the one who "belongs" has a better chance to make his
mark in life. Beyond this, the social inheritance of culture in the family is
valuable, and the traditions and prestige are powerful stimuli to
accomplishment. The remarkable thing would seem to be not that in a few families
a certain percentage of successive generations "live up" to the families'
reputations, but rather the fact that it occurs in so few families.

On the other hand, in the families with "traditions" of exceptional ability,
it is apparently seldom that the exceptionally able individuals in successive
generations are lineal descendents. Instead of father, son, grandson and great
grandson appearing as exceptional, we find rather oftener such relationships as
uncle and nephew between the geniuses of successive generations. In such
families, a stock of moderate ability puts out offshoots of genius, generation
after generation, the geniuses of one generation rarely descending from the
geniuses of the preceding. From this point of view, it would seem that genius is
an evidence, not of fitness of the individual for procreating posterity, but of
fitness of the stocks from which he is an offshoot:

(
170) that the preferable line of breeding may go around him and not through
him.

The situation is still further complicated by the fact that "families" may
flourish generation after generation, showing no exceptionable abilities, and
then begin to produce exceptional men. Most of the "exceptional" families in
America which rose in colonial times can be traced back to mediocrity of
attainment in the British Islands. Obviously, either the proper combination of
various stocks, which eventually occurred, was a necessary condition to the
production of genius, or else the opportunities and stimuli of a changed
environment must be held accountable. Which of the humdrum mediocre "families"
of today will produce the geniuses of three or four generations hence, we cannot
at present determine.

Whatever the importance of mental deficiency as a sign of eugenic
"unfitness," exceptional mental ability cannot at the present time be assumed to
be a sign of eugenic "fitness." We cannot even be certain that it may not be a
sign of eugenic "unfitness."

6.Physical superiority is more plausible, at present, as a sign of
eugenic "fitness," than is mental superiority. The stock which degenerates
physically, is lost, no matter how high its mental attainment in the meantime.
It is, however, in the complex of physical and mental characteristics which are
commonly classed as "beauty" that the greater hope lies eugenically. Not mere
strength of bone and muscle, and vigor of vital processes, but balanced,
coordinated structure and strength, together with organic vigor and resistance,
with accuracy and fine control of movement, are important characteristics of
"fitness," whether they are the most important or not. These are subsumed under
the general attribute of beauty, which includes not merely approved form of body
and texture of skin, and similar structural characteristics, but also grace and
vigor of movement, and poise in repose as well. Some of the accepted standards
of beauty, e.g., smallness of ankle, may seem irrelevant to eugenic fitness, but
these details are demonstrably inheritable, and undoubtedly do con-tribute to
efficiency of movement.

Grace, poise, and accurate coördination of movements are in them-selves to be
classed as mental rather than physical. And they are probably indices of still
higher mental reactions, or at least of the possibility of development there. It
is highly significant that among

(
171) the efficient tests of mental deficiency today, tests of motor
coördination have a high rank, and that the carriage, general movements, and
facial expressions are useful, although not infallible evidence on the same
traits.

§5. The eugenically unfit

The determination of those who are eugenically above the average, that is,
the preëminently "fit," is indeed a difficult matter, and involves many
unsettled problems. When we turn to the other end of the scale we find the
possibilities somewhat more definite. In the first place, those who are
definitely "feeble-minded," or low in the mental scale, are generally agreed to
be undesirable; and since their defect is transmissible to their offspring, we
may consider them, provisionally at least, as definitely "unfit." Further, the
insane, and those afflicted with certain nervous diseases such as epilepsy, are
"unfit" because they also transmit their affliction. Even those who, while not
actually exhibiting the sign of insanity or nervous disease, are lineal
descendents of persons who have shown the symptoms, even to the third or fourth
ascending generation, may transmit the taint, and are not desirable breeding
stock. There is a possibility that even functional nervous disorders (neuroses)
such as neurasthenia and hysteria, are symptoms of transmissible weaknesses; but
this is by no means certain.

Certain physical defects such as hairlip and deformation of the limbs, and
certain types of deafness, are transmissible. Predisposition to certain
diseases, such as tuberculosis, may also be transmissible. Certainly all those
who possess inheritable defects are "unfit" eugenically, and if intelligent, will
themselves agree to this classification.

Obviously, the program of eugenics, for the present, must be concerned
largely with the elimination of these undesirables, and little with the problem
of the "fittest." We must therefore consider these programs with reference
chiefly to the elimination of the "unfit."

§6. Sexual selection

Among human and some lower animals, mates are chosen more or less
deliberately, from among a number of possible mates. Of course, the choosing is
limited in many cases, and in most cases is largely determined by chance,
propinquity, and economic considerations. Sometimes religious restrictions or
class restrictions are imposed,

(
172) and racial limitations are frequently important. But in spite of these
limitations, the man usually chooses for a wife the woman he prefers from among
a number of women, and the woman likewise exercises a certain amount of personal
preference. Not infrequently, personal preference is strong enough to cause the
limitations of class, race, or religion to be broken. The question has been long
since raised, whether or not through this sexual selection, the
characteristics of a group might not be appreciably changed, at least in the
average. It is conceivable that whatever the characteristics, or group of
characteristics, in respect to which mates are selected, successive
generations of such selections might cause these characteristics to increase in
the group, either by increase in the number of individuals possessing the
characteristics, or by a general change in the direction indicated. For example,
if blue-eyed mates were preferred, and more sought than brown-eyed, might not,
in the course of generations, the relative number of blue-eyed persons in the
population increase? Or, if the tall are preferred and more sought than the
short for mates, might not the general average of the height of the population
slowly be raised? The actual effect of such sexual selection has been, and still
is, a matter for debate.

In order that sexual selection might produce any change in the population, in
regard to the characteristics for which selection is made, three considerations
would have to be satisfied:

1.The characteristics for which selection is made
must be hereditary. If blue-eyed individuals did not have a greater tendency
to beget blue-eyed progeny than do brown-eyed, selection of blue-eyed parents in
preference to brown could not possibly influence the relative proportions of
blue and brown eyes in succeeding generations.

2.The standards of selection must remain constant
for a number of generations. Assuming, for the sake of the explanation, that
selection based on preference for slender mates, or for fat mates, could
produce a change in the average plumpness of the population; no important change
could be produced unless the preference remained the same a number of
generations. If plump mates are preferred and selected in one generation, and
slender mates in the next, and so on alternately, it is not conceivable that any
appreciable change in the average plumpness of the population would be
produced.

3.The effects of sexual selection must be such as
to modify the relative

(
173) numbers of progeny of individuals differing in regard to the
characteristics by which selection is made; or else some other means of
selection must be added to the sexual, if the average of the stock is to be
modified. The change in reproductive ratio might be brought about by failure of
certain individuals to mate at all, or by change in the number of children per
family; but if the various types of individuals, under a selective mating system
have the same average number of children as they would without the selection, it
is difficult to see how, in the long run, the average characteristics of the
population could be modified by sexual selection alone. However, it is possible
that sexual selection might assist the application of other selective measures,
as will be indicated below.

In order to analyze the possible effect of sexual selection it is necessary
to consider its operation in the several historic forms of marriage, for it
could not be assumed that the effect would be the same under all systems. It is
necessary also to consider the possible effects when one sex alone is selected
by the other, and when both sexes are selected for the same characteristic.

A. Sexual selection in monogamy. In normal circumstances, the number
of males is approximately equal to the number of females. If all mate, the
average of the population in respect to a given characteristic will not be
affected by any system of mating, except in so far as a recessive characteristic
may be hidden, while still "carried" in heredity.

With double selection, as when, for example, both males and females prefer
the taller of the opposite sex, the preferred will mate with the preferred
(taller with taller), leaving the non-preferred (shorter) of the one sex to mate
with the non-preferred of the other. This is assortative mating. The
average thereby will not be changed, but the height will eventually be more
uniform in each of various stocks, and the height of future generations of
specific families will become more closely predictable. If a weakness, such as
mental defect, were selected against, in this assortative mating, the lower
grades of defect might become concentrated in certain family stocks, and this
might be an advantage in handling these types by sterilization or segregation
(as described below). But aside from the effect of such measures in addition to
sexual selection, the average of the population would not change,

(
174)

If, however, the less favored of both sexes, being rejected by the more
favored of the opposite sex, tended not to mate with each other, the
reproductive ratios would be altered. Unfortunately, this seldom happens unless
compulsion is used. Even the deaf and dumb mate with the deaf and dumb, and the
deformed with the deformed, al-though rejected by the normal, unless forced by
the larger group to refrain.

If selection is single, one sex being selected and the other not, the
conditions are not essentially different. If, for example, men prefer and
choose, if possible, blue-eyed women as against brown-eyed, but women have no
preference in respect to male eye color, the more fortunate blue- and brown-eyed
males will secure the blue-eyed women, but the residual blue- and brown-eyed
males will mate with the brown-eyed women. The average heredity will not be
changed, unless the brown-eyed women are so disliked that the males refuse to
mate with them—an improbable situation, not only in respect to eye colors, but
in respect to all characteristics which might be bases of selection.

Under certain conditions, such as prolonged warfare, the males are relatively
fewer than the females. In monogamy, therefore, a certain proportion of the
females will not be able to mate. If there is definite selection of females, the
less desirable will be unmated, and the cutting off of their progeny may
conceivably raise the average of future generations with regard to the selected
characteristics. Warfare may have had an important effect in modifying the
characteristics of the human races; and its possible benefits along that line
have not heretofore been given sufficient consideration. On the other hand, with
female infanticide, the females being fewer, a certain proportion of the males
will not mate. If the females are given opportunity of selection, the less
preferred males will be unmated, and here also there is a chance of modifying
the future population in respect to the selected characteristics. In general,
however, women in monogamy have had little opportunity to exercise sexual
selection, so that this method of human improvement has probably been
negligible. Selection occurs in such circumstances, but it is economic and
political rather than sexual, the wealthier and most powerful (socially) males
being the fortunate ones. In so far as personal characteristics have made the
male wealthy or powerful, economic and political selection probably does modify
the average

(
175) of the population in the direction of these characteristics. But this
selection is not "sexual" in the proper sense of the term.

Monogamy, however, has not been strict among any civilized peoples, but has
always been largely tempered by prostitution. Since prostitutes as a class
produce relatively few children, a modification of the characteristics of the
population is quite possible if prostitutes are consistently selected, or
selected against, with regard to any specific characteristics.

In modern civilization, there is some evidence that the less intelligent and
less personally beautiful woman has had less chance of marrying, and more chance
of becoming a prostitute, than the more intelligent and beautiful. Wherever this
condition exists for a long period, prostitution has undoubtedly a eugenic
effect,[3]
although that effect may be far outweighed by the dysgenic effects of venereal
disease which prostitution promotes. In ancient civilizations, the same
conditions may not have prevailed. Whereas the intelligence of woman today leads
her to avoid prostitution, as less advantageous than marrying, in some ancient
civilizations the upper class prostitutes (hetairae) were more respected,
and in many ways more favorably situated than wives, and the profession was
taken up by some of the most intelligent and accomplished women.

In all civilizations, however, the more sexually ardent women, and those
whose sexual desires were most like the average male type, have had a greater
chance of becoming prostitutes than their "colder" sisters, or those whose sexual
desires were more different from the masculine in the direction of the average
female of today. That prostitution may have been the important agent in
differentiating the average type of sexual desires of the civilized female from
the male average, cannot be definitely concluded. This is possible, however; and
it is significant that savage peoples, among whom prostitution has not
flourished, are said to lack this differentiation of desire between male and
female. At any rate, prostitution merits, on this account, more careful
consideration as a possible factor in

(
176) modifying the characteristics of a population. But in the case under
consideration, the effect would be dysgenic, not eugenic.

In another way, prostitution, in a monogamous system, may have a eugenic
effect through sexual selection, since it tends to increase the number of
unmarried women who will be, in general, of the less desirable types. There is
always, in such a system, a considerable number of males who will confine
themselves to patronage of prostitutes, instead of marrying; and since the
number of patrons is relatively large in proportion to the number of
prostitutes, the number of potential husbands is thereby reduced. If the classes
of patrons were consistently distinguished from marrying men by any specific
characteristics, rather than by fortuitous circumstances of life, the fact that
this group of men leave practically no progeny would in itself tend to have a
eugenic effect. The existence of specific distinguishing characteristics in this
group, is, however, not highly probable.

B. Sexual selection in polygyny. In a polygynous system, if males were
selected sexually, modifications of the population in the direction of the
selected characteristics would be more pronounced than in monogamous systems.
If, for example, women freely selected their husbands, preferring the more
handsome, vigorous, or intelligent men to those possessing these characteristics
in less degree, many of these less preferred males would be left wifeless (or
would have to engage in polyandrous marriage together with other ill favored
males), so that the procreation of the ill-favored males would be significantly
reduced, and the procreation of the highly favored males with their numerous
wives would be signally increased. The general average of the population would
be gradually raised, even if some of the selected characteristics were
sex-linked, and a differentiation of the sexes in those respects produced.

Unfortunately, in polygynous systems of the past, the females have been able
to exercise no selection, the distribution of wives among the males having been
on an economic and political basis. Polygyny has without doubt exercised an
important influence in modifying population characteristics, but the selection
has not been sexual.

Selection of females in polygyny has, of course, no eugenic effect on the
average. The wealthier and more powerful male will, of

(
177) course, have the more desirable wives. But the less desirable have more
chance of mating than in monogamy, since in a polygynous system a certain
proportion of the males must be wifeless, unless the proportion of females to
males in the population is excessively large. On the other hand, it is possible
that selection of females for desirable qualities may tend, in polygamy, to have
a slight dysgenic effect, because of the reduction of the birth rate per wife in
polygynous marriages. The average number of children per wife decreases on the
average as the number of wives per husband increase, although not in the same
ratio. This is in part due to economic reasons, and in part to natural causes.
Since the men who are able to obtain and support several wives are the
wealthier, they have the advantage in the selection of the more desirable women,
who will therefore be those whose rate of reproduction is decreased, relative to
the single wives. How far this feature of selection has actually affected the
population is conjectural, but it is possible that in some stages of society it
may have been important.

C. Sexual selection in polyandry. In polyandrous marriage, either of
the Thibetan form, or one of the other forms, the conditions of selection of
females would not be effectually different from the conditions in monogamy. An
effective change would be produced only if the less desirable women did not mate
at all: a condition which apparently does not occur. Selection of husbands, on
the other hand, occurring along with selection of wives, should tend to have a
more decidedly dysgenic effect than selection of wives in polygyny, for
increasing the number of husbands of a woman decreases the number of children
each husband will have. The more desirable women, under such a system, will tend
to have more husbands than the others, and these will be of the more desirable
type. The selection will, therefore, tend to decrease, relatively, the progeny
of the more desirable husbands.

There is, however, a new factor introduced through the intercourse of several
males with the same female, which may be somewhat effectual. The more desirable
of the husbands will undoubtedly be given preference by the wife in sex
relations, and thus their chances of procreation will be slightly greater. In
most of the systems, however, the privileges of the husbands are rather formally
arranged, so that the preferential selection by the wife among her actual hus-

(
178) -bands is reduced to a minimum. The total effect of polyandry would
seem, therefore, to be rather dysgenic.

D. Sexual selection in primitive society. In primitive society of the
Indo-European peoples, there was, apparently, an elastic marriage system,
typified by the motu and benna systems of the early Semites, in
which personal inclinations were the most important factors in the choice of
mates, and the marriages were entered upon, and continued, only in so far as
they were personally satisfactory to both parties. Under such conditions, there
would be assortative mating, determined by the personal characteristics of men
and women, and little interfered with by economic considerations, since the
children and the women were charges upon the larger family group, not on the
individuals. Selection of women would have little general eugenic or dysgenic
effect, since all women would mate, and have no difficulty in obtaining mates
for periods of time sufficient to ensure a rate of reproduction practically
equivalent to that of the more desirable women. But the selection of husbands
would ensure that the more desirable male would mate with a larger number of
women than would the less desirable. Hence, the chances of procreation by the
"better" males would be greater, and the number of their progeny would be
relatively greater. At the same time, the relative number of progeny of the
"better" women would not be reduced as it is in polygyny, since they would mate
at least as frequently as the less desirable. Under such conditions, sexual
selection could have a definite and important eugenic effect; and it is
impossible to escape the conclusion that the characteristics of the so-called
Indo-European races have been largely modified by such selection during the
period of free marriages, these characteristics of the males, at least, which
were most highly valued by the women, being heightened in the race.

Among the male characteristics which have in primitive times been the basis
of selection of husbands, have been certainly the characteristics of strength,
agility, and motor control, and bodily structure contributory to these.
Intelligence and intellectual ability have also been preferred, not only because
they condition success in hunting, war, and leadership, always attractive to
women; but also because of the greater stimulus supplied by the intelligent
male. Emotional characteristics which make the man agreeable are also valued,
although in primitive society the practical considerations have the greater
weight.

(
179)

E. Possibilities of sexual selection in the future. With increasingly
strict monogamy, and the repression of war, pestilence, and infanticide, and
with the chance of accidental death more and more equalized between the sexes,
the possibilities of sexual selection are more and more restricted to
assortative mating, which in itself produces neither eugenic nor dysgenic
effects, but which may furnish a basis for other eugenic measures. Obviously it
would be advantageous to have the "best" males mate with the "best" females, and
the "worst" males with the "worst" females, and this holds for sexual
desirability as for other characteristics. Sexual desirability is in general
racial desirability, for the strength, agility, form, poise, and intelligence
which constitute "beauty," i.e., sexual desirability, are characteristics of
value to the race.

Sexual selection is inhibited, at the present time, chiefly by economic
factors, so far as the selection of husbands is concerned; and by a certain
trade-unionism of women, so far as the selection of wives is concerned. Feminine
clothing and cosmetics arc devices which tend to equalize the sexual
attractiveness of women. Naturally, the beautiful and graceful form is preferred
to the ungainly and misshapen one: and the clear, fine skin to the coarse, or
rough, or discolored. But in the civilized costumes of the immediate past, the
well-formed woman has been put more nearly on a par with the ill-formed, by the
concealment of the forms of both. Artificial distortion of figure, as by
corsets; changing the walk to a hobble by high heeled shoes; and artificial
complexions, have still further leveled the ugly and the beautiful. Every step
in the freeing of women from these disguises has been bitterly fought because it
destroys the fictitious equality and gives the really more beautiful an
advantage. Nevertheless, the process goes on slowly, and women probably never
will return to bustles, hoopskirts, corsets and vast masses of hair.

From the standpoint of eugenics, anything which aids sexual selection is a
benefit. Whether social conditions will eventually be so modified that the
economic restrictions on selection of husbands will be removed, is an important
problem. But this must occur if sexual selection is to be made again effective,
since selection of wives alone is eugenically of no consequence. Selection must
be exercised by both sexes to be effectual eugenically, or to contribute
assortatively to eugenic measures.

(
180)

§7. The control of reproduction

Sexual selection, if it can have an effect on modifying the characteristics
of a people, can do so only through a modification of the rates of reproduction
of certain types, so that the increase of one type is changed relative to the
increase of a different type. This, in fact, is the only way in which the
"hereditary" characteristics of a population can be changed. Reproductive
selection, therefore, is the only measure which can be directly eugenic, or
directly dysgenic.

With respect to any assigned characteristic, which is "hereditary" and which
it is desired to increase in the stock, the eugenic possibilities are two-fold.
1. The rate of reproduction of those of high rank with respect to the
characteristics may be accelerated, or, 2. The rate of reproduction of those low
in respect to the characteristics may be decreased. Eugenics, as a definite
program, is therefore interested in the methods which may be practically
available for the promotion of either or both of these results.

Obviously, the other conditions being equal, the number of offspring produced
by any group of people will increase with the number of marriages, provided
these marriages take place during the period of sexual vigor of the individuals.
The positive program of eugenics, therefore, is to encourage and promote as much
as possible the marriage of the "fit," and encourage them to marry as early as
the in-escapable economic, physiological, and psychological conditions permit.
Such encouragement has been proposed as a solution of eugenic problems, and
various persons have engaged in propaganda for the early marriage of the
"better" classes.

Undoubtedly, early marriage, where conditions are favorable, is in itself a
benefit to society and the individuals. Development of personality is promoted;
permanency and stability of the marriage relation is increased through the
greater possibilities in the way of mutual adaptation during youth; and social
vices are decreased, when the average age of marriage in the group is lowered,
provided certain disadvantageous factors are not thereby introduced. The
conditions which must be observed are as follows:

1. A certain stage of physiological and psychological maturity must be
attained. No one could, at the present day, advocate the marriage of children.
On account of individual differences in development

(
181) there is no fixed minimum age limit possible for marriage, but it is
probable that all who are not sufficiently well developed, physiologically and
psychologically, at the age of twenty, are pathological cases and should not
marry at any time later. An absolute legal mini-mum age at 18, with consent of
parents required for both sexes until the age of citizenship at 21, is as much
restraint as the law can afford to give on this point. It is not assumed that
complete "maturity" is reached even at the latter age: nor is it desirable that
marriage shall be postponed until such complete maturity be reached.

2.Sufficient social education must be assured
before marriage, to make intelligent adaptation possible. The youth of
twenty-one with little social knowledge of his fellows and of the opposite sex,
has low chance of success in marriage; and so has the ignorant person of thirty
or forty. There are individual differences in ability to make up deficiences,
and the possibilities of learning are not necessarily checked at marriage. But,
a certain minimum of social training is essential: a minimum which cannot be
arbitrarily prescribed, but which must be determined empirically.

3.Cultural and professional education must not
be checked. In the majority of individuals from eighteen to twenty, schooling is
over, and further learning is acquired by general social contact, reading, and
the actual work of trades and professions. With these, marriage does not
interfere with, but rather facilitates the general educational process. For the
smaller group, who pursue professional training in various lines into later
life, marriage is a serious handicap, especially for women. This, however, is
not an intrinsic incident of matrimony, but is due to peculiarities of our
economic system. There can be little question, however, that a man and woman who
have finished college at twenty-one, look forward to three or four years each of
graduate work, at the end of which they propose to marry, would be better off in
every way if they should marry at once, provided it were economically possible.

4.The economic handicap of marriage is of
course the serious one, and can overcome all the advantages of marriage, whether
it occurs at twenty, thirty or fifty. While it might be argued theoretically,
that aside from the problem of children, there should be no such handicap: that
two persons married to each other should be maintained as easily as the same two
unmarried; the present economic

(
182) system which prescribes that the husband maintain the wife, introduces
a practical consideration which cannot be escaped. The advent, or possibility of
advent, of children, on the other hand, adds a fixed economic factor, which is
even more serious; and the ad-vantages of youthful marriage must frequently be
forgone because of this.

As a eugenic measure, the encouragement of early marriage by propaganda of
any sort is ineffective, as the same measures which might slightly encourage the
"fit" will obviously much more encourage certain classes of the "unfit," to whom
the educational and economic disadvantages of early marriage make less appeal.
Encouragement by measures other than propaganda—bonuses, tax exemption, or any
other possible means—would have the same lack of effect.

The other possible method of positive eugenics is the increase in number of
children per marriage. Obviously, even if the number of marriages of the fit are
not increased, if the average number of children per marriage is increased, a
eugenic effect is produced. This method has been publicly urged within recent
years, but probably not with any serious purpose beyond its political effect,
since upon examination it is seen to be as futile as the attempt to increase the
number of marriages, and would be actually pernicious in its effects if it
should succeed.

Bonuses for children have always been futile and always will be. No state
could possibly pay enough to be an incentive to reproduction, without raising
taxes so that the increased cost of living would reduce the effect of the bonus
to zero. Moreover, no system of bonuses which would apply to the "fit," and not
to the "unfit" has ever been devised.

Propagandizing, or appealing to the "group spirit" of the classes which are
apparently not reproducing rapidly, is apparently in-effective. If it had any
effect, it would affect the opposite class as well, since no such propaganda can
be carried on secretly; but it has actually no effect at all, for reasons which
are clear.

The appeal to group spirit, in respect to progeny, is appeal to the desire
that the group shall continue, and grow. Each member in a disappearing group
(let us say, the "old New England Stock") desires the group represented by his
stock to flourish and increase. But, it is the group he is interested in, not
his particular family. And the

(
183) eugenic appeal is to his interest in the group. Hence, his social
desire is that some persons in the group shall produce more children: not
necessarily his but any one's, so long as they belong to the group. As
soon as the need for progeny is put on the group basis, there is no
inconsistency in urging more copious reproduction, while avoiding it one's self.
Hence, the eugenic propaganda for increased reproduction is absolutely without
effect, so far as can be observed.

Furthermore, it may well be doubted whether the success of the propaganda for
increased reproduction of the declining classes of the population would not be a
serious evil. In the first place, it is by no means certain that these declining
classes represent the desirable stocks for future generations. The more
carefully we consider the families in which women devote themselves to idleness
or social pastimes, becoming mere "kept" women rather than mothers, the more
doubtful we become whether we wish these stocks preserved and multiplied. On the
other hand, in many families where children are wanted and born, but where the
number is restricted to two or three, an increase in the number would be
disastrous to the educational and cultural standards of the classes represented
by these families, and such disaster would react injuriously on society
generally. It may seriously be doubted whether, if the number of children in
such families were doubled, the total group of children would be as useful to
the nation, as efficient members of society, as are the fewer number.

If the desire for children is an inheritable character; and there is no
reason to doubt this; then it would seem that the multiplication of the stocks
which possess this desire strongly would be one of the most certain protections
of the race. Stocks with the desire might be otherwise "unfit," but stocks
without the desire would be unfit, whatever other characteristics they might
possess.

Assuming that relatively high economic standards of living (including the
comforts, conveniences, and intellectual advantages), are commendable, then the
stocks which, while holding these standards, also desire children so strongly
that they will make efforts and sacrifices to maintain their standards while
raising children, are manifestly "fit" stocks; and stocks which have not
sufficient reproductive desire to offset the tendencies to ease and comfort are
less fit, and society should be grateful to them for their self extinguishment.
Increased reproduction of the classes which do not

(
184) wish children is always more probably a dysgenic than a eugenic
measure.

Finally, on account of the fact that the world is in general over-populated,
and that over-population is the most serious problem the human race has to meet,
the eugenic emphasis must for the future be on repression of reproduction of the
less fit, not on increase of the reproduction of the more fit, even if the
latter program were feasible.

§8. The negative program

The only practicable program for eugenics is at the same time the only safe
one, namely, the encouragement and increase of limitations of the reproduction
of the least "fit." This program is practicable, because there are several
classes of the population which are, by majority vote, designated as eugenically
"unfit." These classes are the mentally defective, those with taint of insanity,
and those with inherited physical weakness. Furthermore, there are other
applications of the negative problem which offer distinctly promising prospects.
In the present discussion, we shall consider first the possibilities in handling
the unfit classes mentioned. Various methods for the restriction of propagation
have been employed or proposed at various times. These methods are: 1, Lethal
treatment; 2, Sterilization; 3, Prevention of mating; 4, Contraception, or
so-called "Birth Control."

1. The lethal method. One of the simplest ways of preventing the
multiplication of "unfit" stock is to exterminate the stock. While modern
eugenists do not advocate this treatment, even for the extreme cases of mental
and physical defect, it has nevertheless been applied extensively and on
relatively large scales at times. Leaders of the ancient Hebrews enjoined their
armies to slay' certain conquered enemies, both male and female. These peoples,
from the Jewish standpoint, were eminently "unfit," and it was reasonable,
therefore, that their breed should be drastically reduced. Slaying the males,
and saving the females for wives and concubines, reduces the reproduction of the
stock one-half, and obviates merely political and cultural difficulties. Both
males and females must be exterminated, if the breed is to be eliminated. Many
other ancient peoples practiced this eugenic measure upon their enemies, and
doubtless many stocks have perished almost completely in this way. In

(
185) modern times, the French revolutionists, and more recently the Russian
revolutionists, have practiced the same method upon the aristocratic stocks in
those countries, partly to eliminate the individuals, but in part for deliberate
purpose of effectually stopping future multiplication of these stocks.

2. Sterilization has been extensively advocated for the feeble-minded,
has been legalized in a number of states for this purpose, and actually applied
in several of these states. Sterilization as practiced on the male consists in
the cutting of the vas deferens (the duct which conveys the spermatozoa from the
testes to the seminal vesicles). The operation is simple, and almost painless,
even without anesthetic. The individual is rendered sterile, that is, incapable
of producing offspring, although no other change is introduced in either his
sexual functions or general functions. In fact, if the operation were per-formed
under general anesthetic, and no information were given to the individual, he
would have no certain means of knowing that it had been performed at all.

The operation as performed on the female consists in cutting the fallopian
tubes, which convey the ova from the ovaries to the uterus. This operation is
more serious than the one of the male, since the abdominal cavity must be
opened. But the subsequent effects are practically the same as in the other sex.
There is no disturbance of sex or other organic functions, except in the one
fact, that pregnancy cannot occur.[4]

From the purely eugenic point of view, sterilization is an ideal measure,
since the life and freedom of the individual need not be otherwise interfered
with. There are, however, practical difficulties in the administration of the
measure; and legal difficulties such that the sterilization laws have been
declared unconstitutional in several states, and doubtless will be in every
state where brought to the Supreme Court. No hopes can be entertained of
sterilization as an

(
186) effective eugenic measure for the feeble-minded for the immediate
future, and its application to other classes has not been seriously considered.
As an operation to be performed on those who voluntarily choose it, it may be of
importance at some future time, and might perhaps even be prescribed as a
prerequisite for marriage for seriously defective classes, without
constitutional objections.

3.Prevention of mating. Legal prohibitions of
marriage might be effective for the congenitally deaf and dumb. For other
"unfit" classes it is useless, either because of the impossibility of enforcing
it, or because it would be ineffectual in limiting mating, even if enforced. For
the lower grades of the feeble-minded, it would have no restraining value,
because these classes will mate any way, marriage or no marriage, if opportunity
is given.

The most effective method of prevention of mating is segregation of the
seriously unfit in institutions where they are under such supervision as will
restrain their sexual tendencies. Institutions for the feeble-minded, for the
insane, and for defectives of certain other types, are already caring for many
individuals of these classes. The numbers of feeble-minded persons which can be
maintained in such institutions, even with large expansion beyond present
provisions, is small, relative to the total number in society. In general, only
the most helpless cases can be permanently taken care of in this way.
Segregation cannot, therefore, be expected to be more than a minor eugenic
measure, even in regard to the feeble-minded.

With regard to defectives of most types, the policy of institutions is to
retain them only for such periods of time as are necessary to restore them to a
condition such that they are able to return to their former conditions of life.
Their hereditary and transmissible characteristics are, of course, not changed
by this period of detention.

4.Contraception. Although enforced
sterilization is eventually impracticable because of constitutional difficulties
and because of strongly entrenched prejudices; and although relatively few
persons will be willing to have the operation performed because of its
irrevocable nature, vast numbers of individuals are willing to avoid procreation
by temporary measures to prevent conception. The low birth rates prevailing
among the wealthier and better educated classes of society today are due to this
measure of prevention of conception, or contraception, and not to a decline in
actual fertility.

(
187) The higher birth rates among the poorer and less educated classes are
due to lack of facilities for contraception, not to greater natural fertility,
nor greater desire for children, nor to any considerable extent to religious
prejudices, except in so far as the prejudice of a minority keep the majority
from obtaining the contraceptive facilities.

From the eugenic point of view, it would be much better if contraceptive
knowledge and facilities were more uniformly distributed throughout the various
classes of society. The more intelligent and better educated classes are bound
to possess the knowledge and facilities, and to employ them. The differential of
rate of reproduction is, therefore, enormously in favor of the ignorant and less
intelligent, and although ignorance is in itself not inheritable and is not a
certain evidence of inferior stock, it is dependent upon low intelligence in a
large percentage of cases. The keeping from the poorer and less educated classes
the information possessed by the middle and upper classes is, therefore, fraught
with dangerous possibilities.

Contraception has important eugenic possibilities which have been, until
recently, overlooked. The limitation of offspring practiced by the upper and
middle classes is undoubtedly a eugenic benefit in itself, since the really
"better" stocks among these classes include the individuals who limit their
offspring only to an adequate number, and the "poorer" stocks extinguish
themselves. The only evil, eugenically, is in the failure to apply the same
selection to the economically and educationally lower social classes.

For the worst grades of feeble-minded, eugenic contraception is out of the
question, since their mentality precludes their taking the proper measures
systematically. For the somewhat higher grades, the conditions are different.
They do not strongly desire children, although they do desire sex gratification;
and their desires for comfort and ease are strong enough to make them wish to
limit their offspring, if the means are simple and convenient enough to be
available to them. The negro population in cities and towns is in the same
situation, and the making of contraception available to negroes generally would
undoubtedly solve the "negro problem" by decimating the negro generations. All
the defectives other than the feeble-minded are easily amenable to education as
to the desirability of not producing offspring to perpetuate their infirmities,
provided the limitation involves contraception, and not refraining from
marriage. And it is

(
188) not desirable that any classes of human beings should refrain from
marriage provided they can maintain themselves economically, and provided the
defective types mate assortatively and do not produce offspring.

In view of the general eugenic advantages of contraception, it is necessary
to inquire into the objections which have withheld it, and have resulted in the
present grave situation. These objections are all psychological. A. Religious
prejudices have undoubtedly had their effect, but these are largely incidental.
When any religion puts a tabu or ban on any human activity, there is
always a reason (and every activity of man has been under the ban of some
religion: even eating has been only grudgingly permitted by some). The religious
tabu, in other words, is a form of regulation, but never the reason for the rise
of the regulation. The reasons must be sought elsewhere. Practically, at the
present time, the religious objections do not prevent many of those who possess
contraceptive knowledge and facilities from employing them. B. Need of rapid
increase in the population, regardless of quality. This is the prime source of
objection to contraception. Where each nation and group is in arms against other
nations and groups, the larger crushes the smaller. The nation which reproduces
fastest may be the stronger. At any rate, almost all modern nations have
believed this, and have feared the decline of the birth rate as a decline in
effective strength against the enemy. Undoubtedly, there is a tendency for the
fastest breeders to crush out the slower: a tendency to sacrifice human quality
and human comfort and progress to mere breeding rate. This martial stimulus to
breeding is undoubtedly the main source of the religious prejudice against
contraception. C. It is, believed by many that contraception is "unnatural;" and
hence detestable. It can easily be shown, however, that "unnaturalness" is never
a reason for denunciation, but merely a form of denunciation for other reasons.
Nothing that man can do is "unnatural." The laws of nature cannot be broken, but
limit and prescribe every human act. But some acts are disadvantageous, or evil;
and those acts we call "unnatural." We do not think them evil because unnatural,
but we call them unnatural because we think them evil. Is the cooking of food,
or the use of antiseptic dressings in surgery, or communication by radio
unnatural in any literal sense? Then neither is contraception.

(
189)

D. Many persons sincerely believe that increased facility for contraception
would very much increase sexual immorality. Widespread knowledge of
contraception among married persons is not possible without the unmarried
possessing the same information and tending to use it; and the married also will
apply it to extra-marital matings. This is, indeed, a serious supposition in
many ways. If it were true, we should find that the "upper" and "middle" classes,
who practise contraception so extensively, are far more immoral than the
"lower" classes. This, however, is not the case. But what is more serious, we
should be assuming that sexual morals are almost solely matters of fear of the
immediate consequences of coitus in the way of conception, and not based on any
more complex considerations. If this were true, then it would seem that the
obviation of this danger would dispose of the moral question entirely.

As a matter of fact, close observers of human life are rather unanimous in
their conviction that contraception has little effect on sexual irregularity. It
has some, of course; but in general, those who tend to overstep the sexual
conventions are not deterred by consequences so uncertain as pregnancy. What
contraception outside of marriage undoubtedly does is to reduce markedly the
cases of abortion, of infanticide, and suicide, and the number of cases of
irretrievably wrecked girls' lives. But that the actual number of extra-marital
matings is increased to any important extent is not apparent.

E. Back of all these specious objections to contraception, there is a real
objection which is of vital importance. This is, that all contraceptive methods
employed up to the present time fall into one or both of two classes: the
ineffectual, and the harmful. There is truth in this. Some popular methods are
of slight efficacy. Almost all are psychologically objectionable, and some are
physiologically deleterious. And some of these lead eventually to serious
trouble, affecting the family relations disastrously. This is the real
difficulty in the way of contraception, and the obstacle to its wider spread.
With the development of harmless and effectual as well as simple methods, (which
are well under way at the present time), the apparently vital objections,
(including the religious), will melt away. For it is a fact that in so far as
means are available, people will use them, in spite of their theoretical views;
and as they use the means, their theoretical views change. Neither laws nor
religious interdic-

(
190) -tions can seriously affect such a vital matter. From present
indications, what is now a partly dysgenic force, with other attendant evils,
will be in ten years time a mighty eugenic force, assisting in the solution of
many problems that now threaten society.

Among the immediate effects of more widespread knowledge of and confidence in
contraception, we will find still further reduction in abortion, infanticide,
"ruined women," and, therefore, in prostitution. Increased marriage and lowering
of the average age of marriage, through removal of probability of children before
the parents are economically able to care for them, will increase the
expectation of marriage among the young, and tend therefore to decrease illicit
mating. Undoubtedly, an industrial revolution will be produced, through the
change in the "labor market" when the rate of reproduction of the "laboring
classes" rapidly drops. But there are no predictable effects of a deleterious
sort.

§9. Various classes of undesirables

In connection with the negative program, which is the only practical program
of eugenics, we have considered definitely only four classes of the "unfit": the
feeble-minded, the insane, those with inheritable physical defects, or defects
of sensory or motor nature, and those who are deficient in desire of progeny.
Manifestly, there are really many more classes of the unfit. Hereditary
emotional defects, and moral deficiencies undoubtedly exist. But we have at
present no adequate means for the determination of these deficiencies. Hence it
is useless to discuss them.

There are, however, certain determinable types of people which are commonly
classed as undesirable, and who have even been classed as "unfit" in the eugenic
sense, which it is worth while to discuss briefly. These types are the
criminal, the poor, the neurotic, and the ugly.

1. Criminals. Confusion arises in the consideration of criminals
because the term has two applications, first, to those who commit crime, or
break laws, and second to those who are caught by the law and convicted of
crime. So far as the problem of heredity is involved, therefore, there are two
questions: first, concerning the hereditary tendency to break laws, and second,
concerning the hereditary tendency to get caught at law-breaking.

(
191)

The actual consideration of the problem in the past has concerned criminals
in the second sense almost exclusively. It was supposed by Lombroso and his
followers that there was a "criminal type," possessing hereditary tendencies to
crime (in the second sense); and distinguishable by certain structural
characteristics, such as the shape of the ear and conformation of the jaw. This
theory of the "criminal type" has, however, been generally abandoned, and it is
not believed now that any distinguishable anatomical signs of criminal tendency
exist.

A more recent theory has held that criminality is in large part due to
defective intelligence. If this were true, there would be here an important
hereditary aspect of crime, in the inheritance of intelligence. Plausibility has
been lent to this theory by the obvious fact that the man of low intelligence
has less chance of eluding detection, if he breaks laws, than has the man of
higher intelligence, so that convicted law breakers (criminals in the second
sense) might reasonably be expected to average lower in intelligence than law
breakers in general, and perhaps lower than the population at large.

This expectation was apparently justified by the earlier results of
intelligence tests on criminals and minor offenders of various sorts. Some groups
of convicts in state prisons, and groups of female delinquents were actually
found to be low in intelligence by the standards adopted. But extension of the
work to larger groups, with wider inclusions of crime and misdemeanors, and with
more adequate normal standards of comparison, fails to show any such general
conditions.

Apparently, the mentally deficient are either more disposed than
"normal" individuals to certain petty offenses like pilfering, wanton destruction
of property, and to minor sex offenses like peeping and exhibitionism, and
towards sex perversion; or else a higher percentage of these offenders of low
mentality are apprehended. Very likely, both of these propositions are true. The
average mentality of apprehended prostitutes and "female delinquents" is low, by
any reasonable standard, but this merely indicates the greater ease with which
the feeble-minded loose women are caught in the traps set for them, and does not
indicate the mental condition of the larger uncaught group. Major sexual crimes,
such as rape and seduction, are at least as characteristic of the intelligent as
of the feeble-minded,

The most recent comparison of the intelligence of criminals in penitentiaries
in six states, with the norms of the draft, fails to show an essential
difference between the draft average and the prison average intelligence,[5]
although decided differences are shown between groups convicted for different
types of crime. The norms from the army draft may be said to be too low to
represent fairly the average of the male population within the draft ages, since
large numbers of the more intelligent males avoided the draft by previous
enlistment, or by obtaining commissions or office positions. At the same time, we
may assume that an equally effective selection of law breakers has taken place,
the more intelligent escaping arrest and conviction in far greater numbers than
do the less intelligent. We have no reason to suppose, therefore, that law
breakers in general, (criminals in the first sense), are on the average any
lower in intelligence than the general population.

The average for the total draft should not be far different from the average
for the large sample tested. In view of the relative numbers of officers and
men, the addition of the officers to the draft army would probably not raise the
total average to a point where its deviation from the prison average would be
significant. The measures used are rough: what better measures might show cannot
be conjectured.

Further comparative work on the intelligence of criminals and non-criminals
is highly important. In the meantime, there are practical considerations which
tend to lessen our emphasis on the hereditary factor in crime. Australia and
certain American colonies were primarily settled by "criminals" from Great
Britain deported to those places. Yet the descendents of these colonists show no
excess of criminality which could be attributed to that source. Undoubtedly,
many hereditary characteristics, especially high intel-

(
193) -ligence, and certain emotional traits, do contribute to crime, or at
least to law breaking, under favorable circumstances. But these circumstances
vary so from era to era and from place to place that no persistent criminal
tendency results. Furthermore, it is quite possible that the same
characteristics which under certain economic and political circumstances conduce
to lawlessness, may also conduce to initiative and useful social contributions
under proper circumstances and proper educational directions. It is not, in
general, the hereditary tendencies which are at fault, although there are,
undoubtedly, certain tendencies, (such as feeble mindedness), which always
conduce to specific sorts of crime.

Eugenics, therefore, has but a minor rôle to play in connection with the
lessening of crime. The larger part must be accomplished by cultural progress
and moral education.

2. Poverty, like crime, is socially undesirable. And the poor usually
reproduce more rapidly than the economically better classes because of their
more limited possession of adequate contraceptive information and means. While
it is desirable that the same selective limitation of offspring which occurs in
the wealthier classes should occur in the poorer as well, it is not to be
assumed that the poor, as such, are eugenically less "fit" than the wealthy. Some
non-success in life is due to physical weaknesses and susceptibilities to
serious disease, such as tuberculosis; and some of these weaknesses and
susceptibilities are inheritable. Some, perhaps a considerable proportion, of
non-success is due to low intelligence, disposition to indolence, and similar
mental characteristics, which are also probably inheritable. Moral deficiency is
probably not a factor contributing to poverty, but perhaps the contrary. There
are, moreover, many mental characteristics which are strongly contributory to
poverty in particular circumstances, which are nevertheless extremely desirable,
and should be preserved in the stock.

No adequate analysis of the social value of the descendents of poverty
stricken ancestors, as compared with the descendents of the economically well
off, has been made; nor would it be feasible to make such an analysis. The
comparison is made difficult by the complicating lack of educational and other
opportunities of the poor, the greater difficulty in tracing descent, and the
different ratio of reproduction. The numerous instances of highly valuable men
and

(
194) women emerging from poverty can be taken only as an indication that it
would be unwise and dangerous to assume that poverty is per se an indication of
eugenic unfitness. The improbability of such an assumption is further indicated
by the fact that the descendents of English debtors and other economic
unfortunates who were colonized in America show no less economic ability and
success than the descendents of other colonists.

3.Neurotic tendencies and neurotic individuals
present an important problem in modern society. These individuals, quite
distinct from the feebly intelligent and the insane, are characterized by
relative inability to withstand the conflicts and emotional stresses of life,
and show evidence of this inability in various degrees of neurasthenia,
hysteria, nervous breakdown, "instability" and inefficiency. Apparently, some of
the characteristics which underly the neurotic tendency are inheritable, but it
is not certain what these characteristics are. Perhaps they may be organic
weakness, as of certain glands; but this remains to be determined. But
concerning the larger range of neurotic manifestations, it is by no means
certain that the characteristics which determine them, whether inheritable or
not, may not be such as are most valuable to the race under proper conditions of
education and general environment. We must re-member that many characteristics
which are desirable for certain environments may be serious disadvantages in
other environments. Social progress consists, to such a large extent, in the
shaping of the environment, that we can definitely label any human
characteristic as undesirable only when we can assure ourselves that any
environment in which the characteristic would be an advantage to the social
group is either impossible, or in itself undesirable, or that its attainment
will be so long deferred that the characteristic will in the mean time have done
irreparable damage.

4.Personal ugliness may seem to be so much a
matter of evanescent taste that it can have no dysgenic value. The standards of
male and female beauty are notably different for different races, and differ
somewhat from age to age among civilized races. Among certain barbarous and
savage races, fatness to an extent which we would count deformity is a mark of
great beauty in the female. Among European races, the exact degree of fatness or
lankiness which is most fashionable varies somewhat from generation to
generation, and

(
195) various deformities of the waist and feet, produced by corsets and high
heeled shoes, have had their vogue. These considerations, however, prevent our
giving as much weight to these fluctuations in standard as has popularly been
accorded them. In the first place, we must set standards of "civilized" peoples
above those of savages and barbarians in respect to beauty just as much as we do
in matters of intellect and of morals. The fact that some savage races have
valued highly tendencies to violence and cruelty, does not prevent our holding
opposed standards, and attempting to mold social conditions and personal
development to agree with those standards. Nor do we value less the civilized
standards of naturalism of feature, in spite of savage tendencies toward
mutilation of ears, nose, and mouth, towards tattooings, scarifications, and
hideous paintings; nor are we disposed to abandon our standards merely because
of periodic outbreaks among civilized females of the savage tendencies.

In the second place, the standards of male beauty are relatively fixed in the
European races, and vary in the other races only in accordance with the physical
limitations of these races. Strength, agility, grace and ease of movement, poise
and perfection of body and limb contributing to these and to general organic
efficiency, are everywhere attributes of male beauty, and no race which
possesses these characteristics in low degree fails to admire them in the races
which possess them in higher degree. In particular, the "superior" male, can
always win the female of another race from the males of her own race, if these
are inferior in personal beauty.

In the third place, the variations in standards of female beauty among
civilized races are almost wholly variations in female opinions, due to the
complex factors which determine female fashions, including the "trade
unionism" already referred to. The male opinion is disturbed somewhat by male
eagerness for female approval, and still more by eagerness for approval by other
females of his chosen female. Every man wishes his women to be "fashionable," in
order that they may not be disdained or adversely criticized, however little he
may care for the particular fashions intrinsically. Aside from this, the
intrinsic male standards of female beauty vary little from generation to
generation, and the Dianas and Aphrodites of the ancient Greek ideals are still
the same ideals of the men of today. The fact that feminine fashions in regard
to personal charm fluctuates about these same standards as means also indicates
their permanence.

(
196)

Moreover, there are many details of form in respect to which there has never
been any variation in opinion. Thick ankles; large feet and hands; bow legs;
knock knees; taperless and too fat or too thin calves; skinny legs, hips, and
bosoms; muddy skin; awkwardness of movement and lack of poise; and a multitude
of lesser characteristics, are unanimously reprehended as ugly, and detract from
the sexual desirability of any woman to any man.

One can hardly doubt that conformity to the generally accepted standards of
beauty, by both male and female, is a sign of "fitness;" and since these
structural and motor qualifications are certainly inheritable, of eugenic
"fitness." With our present understanding cf mental processes as
essentially based on activities, we can also understand that efficiency in motor
coördination is an important basis for mental processes, although the motor
efficiency may be present without the mental. We can understand, therefore, the
importance of maintaining and increasing the motor fitness of the race, and its
organic vitality, not merely for the efficiency of the reproductive process as
such, but also as a foundation for every kind of social progress.

Notes

There may be exceptions to this particular rule, but such exceptions, if
they occur, are very rare.

Identical twins are those which develop from the same egg cell, whereas
ordinary twins develop from different eggs. Although there is little probability
that in the separation of the fertilized egg into two cells, the two daughter
cells will be exactly alike in structure, they will be much more alike than two
eggs are apt to be.
Hence, it is assumed that twins of the same sex, and markedly alike, are
identical. Unfortunately, in the studies of twins, there has been no biological
proof of "identity," and the studies of "identical twins" are therefore of little
value. Yet it is reasonable to assume that where the resemblance is very close,
the twins are identical, although careful examination will stress differences in
structure and response in every case. In a scientific study, identity or
non-identity would be determined at birth, by examination of the placenta or
placentae, and the twins so identified studied during their later development.
Such a study is very much needed.

The woman who becomes a prostitute definitely loses whatever chance of
marrying she still might have had, and as a prostitute, the chances of her
producing children are very small. The feeble-minded woman, if not a prostitute,
produces children with or without marriage.

Sterilization, therefore, must not be confused with asexualization. Asexualization
is the removal of the testes from the male (castration) or the ovaries from the
female (ovariotomy, or speying). Removal of these glands has profound effects
both on the sexual functions and on bodily activities generally.
Sterilization by means of the x-ray is also employed, it being possible to
apply the x-rays for a length of time sufficient to destroy the germ cells,
without seriously affecting other cells. Sterilization by this method is
apparently a process little, if any, more dangerous to the female than to the
male.

C. A. Murchison, American White Criminal Intelligence. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol.
XV, (1924). It should be pointed out that the intelligence distributions
of prisoners are bimodal, that is, the total group could be resolved into two
overlapping groups, one higher, the other lower, than the army average. Whether
the bimodal feature of the distribution would disappear if the number of
prisoners approximated the far larger number of the draft, or represents a
definite duality of group in the prison, cannot be clearly determined.

The original published version of this document is in the public domain. The
Mead Project exercises no copyrights over the original text.

This page and related Mead Project pages constitute the personal web-site
of Dr. Lloyd Gordon Ward (retired), who is responsible for its content.
Although the Mead Project continues to be presented through the
generosity of Brock University, the contents of this page do not reflect
the opinion of Brock University. Brock University is not responsible for
its content.

Fair Use Statement:

Scholars are permitted to reproduce this material for personal use.
Instructors are permitted to reproduce this material for educational use by
their students.

Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, for the purpose of profit or personal benefit, without written permission from the Mead Project. Permission is granted for inclusion of the electronic text of these pages, and their related images in any index that provides free access to its listed documents.